21/05/2007

How to save the quality press?

Philosopher Jürgen Habermas argues for state support for quality newspapers.

Three weeks ago the business desk of Die Zeit newspaper
startled readers with the headline "Will the fourth power come under
the hammer?" The article was prompted by the alarming news that the
fate of the Süddeutsche Zeitung is up in the air because a majority of stockholders want to sell their shares.

If it should come to a sale, one of the two best national newspapers in the Federal Republic could fall into the hands of financial investors,
listed companies or media giants. Some will say: business as usual,
what's so alarming about shareholders making use of their right to sell
their shares, for whatever reason?

Like other newspapers, the Süddeutsche Zeitung
has now overcome the crisis triggered at the start of 2002 by the
collapse in the advertising market. The families now wishing to divest
- and who own over 62.5 percent of the shares - have chosen a propitious moment.

Profits
have risen, despite digital competition and changing readership habits.
Apart from the current economic upturn, this can mainly be put down to
rationalisation measures that affect performance levels and the freedom
of editorial desks. News from the American newspaper sector confirms
this trend.

The Boston Globe, for instance, one of the
few left-liberal papers in the country, has had to cut all its foreign
correspondents. The battleships of the national press such as The Washington Post and The New York Times fear takeovers by companies or funds which seek to "streamline" demanding media with unreasonable ideas of profit. And at The Los Angeles Times, the takeover is already in the works.

Then last week Die Zeit published
a second article, on the "battle of Wall Street financial managers
versus the US press." What lies behind such headlines? Clearly the fear
that the market on which the national newspapers must compete today
will fail to do justice to the twin function that the quality
press has fulfilled up to now: satisfying the demand for information
and education while securing adequate profits.

But are higher
profits not a confirmation that "streamlined" newspaper businesses
better satisfy the wishes of their readers? Don't vague terms like
"professional", "demanding" and "serious" simply camouflage a paternalistic attitude
toward consumers who know perfectly well what they want? Under the
pretence of "quality", should the press be allowed to circumcise its
readership's freedom to chose? Should it be allowed to impose upon them
dry reports instead of infotainment, factual commentary and complex
arguments instead of more accessible stories on people and events?

At
the base of the objection implicit in these questions lies the
controversial assumption that customers decide independently according
to their preferences. This outdated piece of schoolbook wisdom is certainly misleading, bearing in mind the special character of the commodity "cultural and political communication." Because this commodity also tests and transforms the preferences of its consumers.

Readers, listeners and viewers are certainly directed by various preferences
in using the media. They want to be entertained or distracted, they
want to be informed about certain topics and events, or participate in
public discussions. But as soon as they assent to cultural or political
programmes, for example by reading a daily paper, Hegel's 'realistic
morning prayer,' they expose themselves to what is in a manner of
speaking an auto-paternalistic learning process with an undetermined outcome.

In the course of reading, new preferences, convictions and value orientations may be formed. The meta-preference which
guides such a reading is oriented on the advantages expressed in the
professional self-image of independent journalism, and which form the
basis of the quality press' reputation.

A slogan
that made the rounds at the time of television's introduction in the
USA characterises the dispute over the special character of the
commodities of education and information: the TV, it was said, is just "atoaster with pictures."
By this was meant that the production and consumption of television
programmes could confidently be left to the market. Since then, media
enterprises have produced programmes for viewers and sold their
audiences' attention to advertisers.

This organisational principle has inflicted political and cultural crop damage
wherever it has been introduced systematically. The German "dual"
television system is an attempt to limit this damage. The media laws of
the German states, the relevant judgements of the Federal
Constitutional Court and the programming guidelines of the public
broadcasters all reflect the idea that the electronic mass media should
not only satisfy customers' more marketable needs for entertainment and distraction.

Radio
and television audiences are not just consumers, that is market
participants, but also citizens with a right to participate in culture,
observe political events and form their own opinion. On the basis of
this legal entitlement, programmes assuring part of the population's "basic supply" may not be made dependent on their advertisement effectiveness or sponsoring.

At
the same time, the politically-determined public licence fees that finance this
basic supply are also independent of states' budgetary situations, that
is of the ups and downs of the economy. This argument is rightfully
being used by the broadcasting corporations in proceedings between them
and the state governments now pending in the German Constitutional
Court.

Now public legal status may be all very well and
good for the electronic media. But can it be an example for the way
"serious" newspapers and magazines like the Süddeutsche Zeitung or the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Zeit or the Spiegel - perhaps even for the quality monthly magazines - are organised?

Studies
carried out by communication scientists are of interest here. At least
in the area of political communication - that is for the reader as
citizen - the quality press plays the role of the "leading media." In
their political reporting and commenting, radio, television and the
other newspapers are largely dependent on the topics and stories
advanced by the "reasoning" papers.

Let's assume some of these papers come under pressure from financial investors who are out for a quick buck and
who plan in unreasonably short intervals. When reorganisation and cost
cutting in this core area jeopardise accustomed journalistic standards,
it hits at the very heart of the political public sphere.

Because without the flow of information gained through extensive research, and without the stimulation of arguments based on an expertise that doesn't come cheap, public communication loses its
discursive vitality. The public media would then cease to resist
populist tendencies, and could no longer fulfil the function it should
in the context of a democratic constitutional state.

We live in
pluralistic societies. The democratic decision-making process can only
overcome deep philosophical differences as long as it develops a
legitimating bonding force. This must be convincing to all citizens and
combine inclusion, that is the equal participation of all citizens,
with a more or less discursive atmosphere of conflict of opinion.

We
go on the assumption that in the long run, the democratic procedure
will have more or less reasonable results. But this assumption is
founded in turn by deliberative conflicts. Democratic
opinion-making has an epistemic dimension, because it is at the same
time involved with the criticism of false allegations and appraisals.
And a discursively vital media is an active participant in this.

This can be intuitively understood in the difference that exists between competing "public opinions" and publications showing the repartition of opinions gathered through demoscopy,
or public opinion research. For all their dissonance, public opinions
that have been created through discussion and polemic have already
been filtered through the relevant information and argumentation. Demoscopy,
on the other hand, merely reflects latent opinions in their raw and
dormant state.

Of course, the kind of regulated discussion or
consultation that one sees in the law courts or parliamentary
committees is prevented by the wild communication exchanges of
a public sphere controlled by mass media. But in fact one would not
expect such regulated discussion in public life, because political
communication is just a link in the chain. It mediates between
institutionalised discourses and negotiations taking place in the state
arenas on the one hand, and the episodic and informal daily talk of
potential voters on the other.

The public sphere does its part in democratically legitimatising state action by selecting objects
relevant for political decision-making, forming them into issues and
bundling them into competing public opinions with more or less
well-informed and reasoned arguments.

In this way, public
communication is a force that stimulates and orients citizens' opinions
and desires, while at the same time forcing the political system to
adjust and become more transparent. Without the impulse of an
opinion-forming press, one that informs reliably and comments
diligently, the public sphere will lose this special type of energy. When gas, electricity or water are at stake, the state must guarantee the energy supply for the population.

Shouldn't it do likewise when this other type of 'energy'
is at risk - the absence of which will cause disruptions that harm the
state? It is not a 'system failure' when the state tries to protect the
public commodity that is the quality press. The real question is just
the pragmatic one of how that can be done best.

In the past, the Hessian state government has helped out the Frankfurter Rundschau with
a loan - to no avail. One-off subsidies are only one possibility.
Others are foundations with public participation, or tax breaks for
family holdings in this sector. These experiments already exist
elsewhere, and none of them are unproblematic. But the first step is
getting used to the very idea of subsidising newspapers and magazines.

From a historical point of view, there is something counter-intuitive
in the idea of reigning in the market's role in journalism and the
press. The market was the force that created the forum for subversive
thoughts to emancipate themselves from state oppression in the first
place.

Yet the market can fulfil this function only so long as
economic principles do not infringe upon the cultural and political
content that the market itself serves to spread. This is still the kernel of truth at
the core of Adorno's criticism of the cultural industry. Distrustful
observation is called for, because no democracy can allow itself a
market failure in this sector.

*

The article originally appeared in German in the Süddeutsche Zeitung on May 16, 2007.

Jürgen Habermas,
born in 1929, is one of Germany's foremost intellectual figures. A
philosopher and sociologist, he is professor emeritus at the Johann
Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt and the leading representative
of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory. His works include
"Legitimation Crisis", "Knowledge and Human Interests", "Theory of
Communicative Action" and "The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity."

Wednesday March 28, 2012

Signandsight.com bids farewell after seven exciting and engaging years. Editors Thierry Chervel and Anja Seeliger express their thanks and say a personal good-bye to our readers - while remaining committed to the idea of a public forum dedicated to the motto "Let's Talk European". read more

Wednesday 26 October, 2011

If geniuses still exist in Germany, then Friedrich Kittler, who died at the age of 68 on 18 October, was one of them. The literary scholar and media theorist wrote as much about drugs as he did about weapons, and he was as interested in war as he was in love. One of his PhD students is a Eurofighter pilot in Afghanistan. Andreas Rosenfelder talked with him in his Berlin apartment at the beginning of the year.read more

Monday 17 October 2011

The Chaos Computer Club's sensational find of a German government trojan has shed light on an extreme case of state surveillance. Spokespersons of the club, Constanze Kurz and Frank Rieger suggest that this is not an isolated case of enforcement overstepping the limits of the law. In an interview with Joachim Güntner they talk about the promise of efficiency, the antagonism of freedom and security, and the society of digital control.
read more

Wednesday 23 March, 2011

We're extremely pleased to be back, after a bout of financial flu, buoyed up by your many mails of encouragement! The new streamlined signandsight.com will no longer deliver feuilleton or magazine summaries, concentrating on getting you full translations every week instead. Please follow us on Twitter and eventually Facebook too!read more

Tuesday 2 November, 2010

Two years ago Argentinian philosophy professor Horacio Potel was taken to court for running three non-profit online Spanish libraries featuring hitherto unavailable texts by Heidegger, Derrida and Nietzsche. He talks to Beatriz Busaniche about his country's draconian copyright laws and the vital importance of free access to our common heritage.read more

Tuesday 26 May, 2009

As the world awaits the decision on the Google Books Settlement, there is much uncertainty and debate about what it will mean for authors' rights. In Germany, literature professor Roland Reuß has added to the confusion by launching an attack on what he believes to be another enemy of the freedom to publish: Open Access. Publishers, journalists, authors and other sympathisers have signed his petition, which is now in the hands of Chancellor Merkel. Their arguments are hair-raising, deluded and dangerous, says Matthias Spielkampread more

Thursday 3 January, 2008

Give me back my hierarchical media system! Print journalists live in fear of the death of "good journalism" through Web 2.0 and yet a blogger was nominated Germany's journalist of 2007. While the discourse rumbles on Google is noiselessly earning 3 euros a month from millions of German users. By Robin Meyer-Luchtread more

Monday 18 June, 2007

European democracy exists largely within nation-states, and not in the continental dimension. Even the ponderous TV channel "Euro-News" has not succeeded in creating a European public sphere. But without a European consciousness there will be no European federation. For this to happen interpreters are needed, to explain the motives of one side to the other. By Adam Krzeminskiread more

Thursday 9 May, 2007

Newspapers by nature cover local matters. That belongs to the rules of the game. But what happens when the rules change? Only when they take an active interest in affairs abroad will paper's coverage on their home turf improve. Arne Ruth, long-time chief editor of Sweden's Dagens Nyheter, tells why cross-border journalism can help make the separate realms of Europe a single public space. read more

Thursday 22 March, 2007

The UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions entered into force on March 18. Rüdiger Wischenbart gives a quick overview of the realities behind translation.read more

Thursday 6 July, 2006

We live in a knowledge society, but it knows very little about itself. Information technologies allow us to organise knowledge faster than ever, yet we are regularly warned that we are losing touch with knowledge. The total of all stored knowledge is an exotic 5 exabytes, but a closer look reveals a network of one-way streets, detours, and barred routes. By Rüdiger Wischenbartread more

Wednesday 17 May, 2006

Crisis is nothing new to the press. Newspapers will continue to exist, alongside the Internet, soon in paperless form. They must offer their readers exclusive news, bold opinion and captivating language. Mathias Döpfner,head of the Axel Springer media empire, answers Rupert Murdoch. read more

Monday 10 October, 2005

Prospect magazine's list of the world's top 100 public intellectuals speaks tellingly about the provincialism of today's global media, but says nothing about the ideas behind today's global world. By Arno Widmannread more